Which of these changes are worth making because they solve long-standing problems? Because of the JSC's removal of the "rule of three" many of our uniform titles will change under RDA anyway. Does that argue for more or fewer changes to the rest of the instructions relating to naming musical works? How does the principle of Common Usage or Practice (0.4.3.8) relate to naming works?

+

+

After all, many of the changes proposed here violate the objective articulated in RDA 0.4.2.4 (Continuity): "The data should be amenable to integration into existing databases (particularly those developed using AACR and related standards) with a minimum of retrospective adjustment to those databases."

+

+

I still have a problem with LC's emphasis on the principle of representation for naming works. I believe that this concept works well with description, but it creates problems in Chapter 6: representation of what, exactly? (The first published ed.? The manuscript? What if the only manifestation of the work is a sound recording?). Without the manuscript in hand (a rarity), how will the cataloger know what terminology, etc. is used? At least in some cases, we only know what the *publisher* used. (For possible problematic examples, see 6.15.1.3.1 "the composer's original title in the language in which it was presented"; 6.15.1.3.4b "when a composer uses a term for a type of composition..."). This situation becomes more obvious with the instruction in 6.16.0.8.1 "record the name of the ensemble as found in the resource or other source". Why this exception of the composer's original language here? Some greater consistency in the language of these instructions is needed, with an eye toward some level of pragmatism: we mostly catalog published manifestations, after all.

+

+

Rationale for 6.15.1.3.4:

+

+

I'm disappointed in LC's lack of support for MLA's types of composition document -- I suspect the RDA implementation will involve more, not less, of such supporting documentation. Of course, they do not use this document, even though it has been created based largely on LC's decisions.

+

+

+

- Glennan 1/12/09

+

+

==Rule Specific Comments==

+

+

'''6.15.1.3.4'''

+

+

I still have strong objections to this proposal, and the ALA comments put forward in the response to the original LC/12 still hold. I would much prefer introducing the broader concept of cognates, instead of relying on the closed list here. Alternatively, I would also support sticking with the AACR2 practice for reasons of backwards compatibility. - Glennan 1/12/09

+

+

If this section is retained, consider adding the other types of composition mentioned in the Glossary definition (only the italic ones are currently in this list) "(e.g., capriccio, ''concerto'', intermezzo, Magnificat, ''mass'', movement, muziek, nocturne, ''requiem'', Stück, ''symphony'', ''suite'', Te Deum, trio sonata)". After all, if these are generic terms used frequently by different composers, shouldn't they all be present here? - Glennan 1/12/09

+

+

Tempo markings should be included in this instruction as written. This was present in the discussion document prepared for the "May Group" meeting, and I can't find any reason it should have been removed. - Glennan 1/12/09

+

+

'''6.15.1.4.3'''

+

+

This list should just be examples of the instruction above. I also strongly recommend using real examples of actual manifestations that result in the choice of "title chose as a result of following this instruction". I can supply complete examples if necessary. I also do not agree with all of the examples in this list, including "The celebrated Sophie waltz" and "concerto a cinque". This instruction should result in the character string considered as an initial step in determining the preferred title, not the only step. - Glennan 1/12/09

+

+

+

'''6.16.0.8'''

+

+

I don't see how LC's proposed revision solves the problem stated in the last sentence: "... the implication that the components of all orchestras and bands are the same, when they are not." Just think of the evolution of what constitutes an "orchestra" over time -- this will *still* be a problem unless we give the actual instrumentation somewhere in all records where that info. is available. At this point, I'm not advocating for that approach, and doubt that this is LC's intent.

+

+

If we're using the name of the ensemble as found in the resource or other source, then we wouldn't be normalizing for the language preferred by the cataloguing agency. We absolutely do not want representation trumping language of the catalog/user here.

+

+

Even if the translation provision is introduced, there are still problems. As noted in the original ALA response to LC/12, "The frequency with which terms would need to be translated to English from what is found on the resource invites confusion when the same term is rendered in different ways for the same musical work (e.g. the large ensemble in Béla Bartók’s Musik für Saiteninstrumente, Schlagzeug und Celesta, as it was called in its first edition, has been translated as “string instruments,” “strings,” and “string orchestra” in various manifestations)."

+

+

I believe that inconsistencies in terminology will be problematic: "wind ensemble" could be recorded because it's for one performer to a part (6.16.0.7) or because it's the terminology used by the composer (publisher??) when describing a large ensemble with more than one player to a part (6.16.0.8).

+

+

- Glennan 1/12/09

+

+

+

'''6.16.0.8.2'''

+

+

How is the order prescribed in this instruction compatible with the first instruction of substance in 6.16.0.3 (Recording medium of performance)? The order of these instructions implies some sort of hierarchy, especially since no restrictions are placed in 6.16.0.3, or do those instructions not apply to works which include large ensembles? If the latter is the case, it needs to be made explicit. - Glennan 1/12/09

+

+

+

'''6.16.0.10.3'''

+

+

I have no particular objection to merging 6.16.0.10.3 & 6.16.0.10.4. However, what isn't clear from this instruction is what to do if absolutely no specific voice types or registers can be ascertained. Can I use "solo voices" without a preceding description like "mixed", "men's", etc.? Should I? In any case, I think the proposed revision needs additional tweaking, perhaps along the lines of:

+

+

Use a general term for two or more solo voices of different ranges if no more specific voice type(s) can be ascertained.

+

+

- Glennan 1/12/09

+

+

+

'''6.28.1.2 Adaptations of musical works'''

+

+

I recommend the following revision of LC's instruction:

+

+

Apply the instructions below when constructing the preferred access point representing an adaptation or revision of a previously existing musical work that substantially changes the nature and content of that work. Consider such modifications to create new works, including:

+

+

a) modifications described as freely transcribed, based on, etc., and other modifications incorporating new material

+

+

b) paraphrases of works or of the general style of another composer

+

+

c) modifications in which the harmony or musical style of the original has been changed

+

+

d) performances of musical works that involve substantial creative responsibility for adaptation, improvisation, etc., on the part of the performer(s)

+

+

+

I see no reason to include the musical works based on other music category that LC added to their proposal. - Glennan 1/12/09

+

+

+

I'm not sure I agree with LC's contention/idea to list all types of modifications that can result in a new work here (see cover letter #5). Isn't it better to leave these as categories of examples and let cataloger's judgment come in to play about whether or not the resource being cataloged is an adaptation resulting in a new work? - Glennan 1/12/09

+

+

+

For 6.28.1.2.2b, I prefer the equivalent text in the original ALA response, so I recommend changing "the preferred title for the adaptation,..." to "the preferred title for the new work,..." - Glennan 1/12/09

+

+

+

'''6.28.1.2.4'''

+

+

How can a cataloger know if "the adaptation is commonly cited by title" -- this whole instruction is about creating the preferred access point, by which (in library catalogs at least) the adaptation will be cited. Is there a better way to phrase this to get at LC's intent without making the instruction a research project for a cataloger? - Glennan 1/12/09

+

+

+

'''6.28.1.3.1'''

+

+

I don't think the change from "If the text, plot, setting, or other verbal element" to "If the text or other verbal element, plot, setting, etc." is necessary. How is a plot or setting not a verbal element? The former wording also prevents the use of "etc." - Glennan 1/12/09

+

+

I can live with the change from "adapted" (proposed in ALA response to original LC/12) to "substantially modified" (current document). Obviously, the change to "substituted from "supplied" is fine, since it matches the original ALA response to LC/12. - Glennan 1/12/09

+

+

The original language in the ALA response calls these things new expressions. Are they? If so, the instructions belong in 6.28.3. If they aren't, then any proposed language we supply needs to remove the use of "expression" in the instruction. This is not a problem in the LC language proposed here. I've considered these expressions in the past in part because of the way the preferred access point is constructed -- with a parenthetical modification of the preferred access point for the original work. Note that unlike with translations, a modification does not appear in association with naming the original work.

+

+

Given that this instruction addresses operas with new text and title, I'm beginning to think this type of modification is substantial enough to consider these new works.

+

+

- Glennan 1/12/09

+

+

+

'''6.28.3.2 Added performance parts'''

+

+

LC's limiting of their proposed changes to 6.28.1.3 to "operas, etc." means that they have had to add "new text, or substitute text" here as well. I don't see the point in this approach -- we should just address this type of addition in one instruction, not two. Remember one (rarely achieved) goal of RDA is to simplify! I prefer retaining the original LC/12/LC follow-up 6.28.3.2 to the version proposed here. - Glennan 1/12/09

+

+

+

'''6.28.3.3 Arranged accompaniment'''

+

+

Prefer the language in the ALA response to the original LC/12:

+

+

Construct the preferred access point for the following types of expressions according to the instructions given under 6.17.3.5.2-6.17.3.4.3 ''(numbering needs updating)'':

+

+

a) a work or part(s) of a work for solo instrument(s) with ensemble accompaniment;

Latest revision as of 09:02, 10 June 2011

Please have your comments ready to paste into the wiki by first writing them in a text editor, like Microsoft Word or Notepad. Don't keep a page open for more than 5 minutes.

Always log in before editing.

Paste in your comments, in rule number order, as follows:

Problem

Solution

Your name/liaison organization

Month/day/year

Never copy and paste over the entire original wiki document.

Deadline for entering comments: Jan. 12, 2009

General Comments

Cover letter

RDA 6.15.1

Which of these changes are worth making because they solve long-standing problems? Because of the JSC's removal of the "rule of three" many of our uniform titles will change under RDA anyway. Does that argue for more or fewer changes to the rest of the instructions relating to naming musical works? How does the principle of Common Usage or Practice (0.4.3.8) relate to naming works?

After all, many of the changes proposed here violate the objective articulated in RDA 0.4.2.4 (Continuity): "The data should be amenable to integration into existing databases (particularly those developed using AACR and related standards) with a minimum of retrospective adjustment to those databases."

I still have a problem with LC's emphasis on the principle of representation for naming works. I believe that this concept works well with description, but it creates problems in Chapter 6: representation of what, exactly? (The first published ed.? The manuscript? What if the only manifestation of the work is a sound recording?). Without the manuscript in hand (a rarity), how will the cataloger know what terminology, etc. is used? At least in some cases, we only know what the *publisher* used. (For possible problematic examples, see 6.15.1.3.1 "the composer's original title in the language in which it was presented"; 6.15.1.3.4b "when a composer uses a term for a type of composition..."). This situation becomes more obvious with the instruction in 6.16.0.8.1 "record the name of the ensemble as found in the resource or other source". Why this exception of the composer's original language here? Some greater consistency in the language of these instructions is needed, with an eye toward some level of pragmatism: we mostly catalog published manifestations, after all.

Rationale for 6.15.1.3.4:

I'm disappointed in LC's lack of support for MLA's types of composition document -- I suspect the RDA implementation will involve more, not less, of such supporting documentation. Of course, they do not use this document, even though it has been created based largely on LC's decisions.

- Glennan 1/12/09

Rule Specific Comments

6.15.1.3.4

I still have strong objections to this proposal, and the ALA comments put forward in the response to the original LC/12 still hold. I would much prefer introducing the broader concept of cognates, instead of relying on the closed list here. Alternatively, I would also support sticking with the AACR2 practice for reasons of backwards compatibility. - Glennan 1/12/09

If this section is retained, consider adding the other types of composition mentioned in the Glossary definition (only the italic ones are currently in this list) "(e.g., capriccio, concerto, intermezzo, Magnificat, mass, movement, muziek, nocturne, requiem, Stück, symphony, suite, Te Deum, trio sonata)". After all, if these are generic terms used frequently by different composers, shouldn't they all be present here? - Glennan 1/12/09

Tempo markings should be included in this instruction as written. This was present in the discussion document prepared for the "May Group" meeting, and I can't find any reason it should have been removed. - Glennan 1/12/09

6.15.1.4.3

This list should just be examples of the instruction above. I also strongly recommend using real examples of actual manifestations that result in the choice of "title chose as a result of following this instruction". I can supply complete examples if necessary. I also do not agree with all of the examples in this list, including "The celebrated Sophie waltz" and "concerto a cinque". This instruction should result in the character string considered as an initial step in determining the preferred title, not the only step. - Glennan 1/12/09

6.16.0.8

I don't see how LC's proposed revision solves the problem stated in the last sentence: "... the implication that the components of all orchestras and bands are the same, when they are not." Just think of the evolution of what constitutes an "orchestra" over time -- this will *still* be a problem unless we give the actual instrumentation somewhere in all records where that info. is available. At this point, I'm not advocating for that approach, and doubt that this is LC's intent.

If we're using the name of the ensemble as found in the resource or other source, then we wouldn't be normalizing for the language preferred by the cataloguing agency. We absolutely do not want representation trumping language of the catalog/user here.

Even if the translation provision is introduced, there are still problems. As noted in the original ALA response to LC/12, "The frequency with which terms would need to be translated to English from what is found on the resource invites confusion when the same term is rendered in different ways for the same musical work (e.g. the large ensemble in Béla Bartók’s Musik für Saiteninstrumente, Schlagzeug und Celesta, as it was called in its first edition, has been translated as “string instruments,” “strings,” and “string orchestra” in various manifestations)."

I believe that inconsistencies in terminology will be problematic: "wind ensemble" could be recorded because it's for one performer to a part (6.16.0.7) or because it's the terminology used by the composer (publisher??) when describing a large ensemble with more than one player to a part (6.16.0.8).

- Glennan 1/12/09

6.16.0.8.2

How is the order prescribed in this instruction compatible with the first instruction of substance in 6.16.0.3 (Recording medium of performance)? The order of these instructions implies some sort of hierarchy, especially since no restrictions are placed in 6.16.0.3, or do those instructions not apply to works which include large ensembles? If the latter is the case, it needs to be made explicit. - Glennan 1/12/09

6.16.0.10.3

I have no particular objection to merging 6.16.0.10.3 & 6.16.0.10.4. However, what isn't clear from this instruction is what to do if absolutely no specific voice types or registers can be ascertained. Can I use "solo voices" without a preceding description like "mixed", "men's", etc.? Should I? In any case, I think the proposed revision needs additional tweaking, perhaps along the lines of:

Use a general term for two or more solo voices of different ranges if no more specific voice type(s) can be ascertained.

- Glennan 1/12/09

6.28.1.2 Adaptations of musical works

I recommend the following revision of LC's instruction:

Apply the instructions below when constructing the preferred access point representing an adaptation or revision of a previously existing musical work that substantially changes the nature and content of that work. Consider such modifications to create new works, including:

a) modifications described as freely transcribed, based on, etc., and other modifications incorporating new material

b) paraphrases of works or of the general style of another composer

c) modifications in which the harmony or musical style of the original has been changed

d) performances of musical works that involve substantial creative responsibility for adaptation, improvisation, etc., on the part of the performer(s)

I see no reason to include the musical works based on other music category that LC added to their proposal. - Glennan 1/12/09

I'm not sure I agree with LC's contention/idea to list all types of modifications that can result in a new work here (see cover letter #5). Isn't it better to leave these as categories of examples and let cataloger's judgment come in to play about whether or not the resource being cataloged is an adaptation resulting in a new work? - Glennan 1/12/09

For 6.28.1.2.2b, I prefer the equivalent text in the original ALA response, so I recommend changing "the preferred title for the adaptation,..." to "the preferred title for the new work,..." - Glennan 1/12/09

6.28.1.2.4

How can a cataloger know if "the adaptation is commonly cited by title" -- this whole instruction is about creating the preferred access point, by which (in library catalogs at least) the adaptation will be cited. Is there a better way to phrase this to get at LC's intent without making the instruction a research project for a cataloger? - Glennan 1/12/09

6.28.1.3.1

I don't think the change from "If the text, plot, setting, or other verbal element" to "If the text or other verbal element, plot, setting, etc." is necessary. How is a plot or setting not a verbal element? The former wording also prevents the use of "etc." - Glennan 1/12/09

I can live with the change from "adapted" (proposed in ALA response to original LC/12) to "substantially modified" (current document). Obviously, the change to "substituted from "supplied" is fine, since it matches the original ALA response to LC/12. - Glennan 1/12/09

The original language in the ALA response calls these things new expressions. Are they? If so, the instructions belong in 6.28.3. If they aren't, then any proposed language we supply needs to remove the use of "expression" in the instruction. This is not a problem in the LC language proposed here. I've considered these expressions in the past in part because of the way the preferred access point is constructed -- with a parenthetical modification of the preferred access point for the original work. Note that unlike with translations, a modification does not appear in association with naming the original work.

Given that this instruction addresses operas with new text and title, I'm beginning to think this type of modification is substantial enough to consider these new works.

- Glennan 1/12/09

6.28.3.2 Added performance parts

LC's limiting of their proposed changes to 6.28.1.3 to "operas, etc." means that they have had to add "new text, or substitute text" here as well. I don't see the point in this approach -- we should just address this type of addition in one instruction, not two. Remember one (rarely achieved) goal of RDA is to simplify! I prefer retaining the original LC/12/LC follow-up 6.28.3.2 to the version proposed here. - Glennan 1/12/09

6.28.3.3 Arranged accompaniment

Prefer the language in the ALA response to the original LC/12:

Construct the preferred access point for the following types of expressions according to the instructions given under 6.17.3.5.2-6.17.3.4.3 (numbering needs updating):

a) a work or part(s) of a work for solo instrument(s) with ensemble accompaniment;
b) an accompanied vocal work or part(s) of such a work.